Monthly Archives: December 2012

ACLU Fights Oklahoma Judge Over Court-Ordered Church Attendance in DUI Manslaughter Case

Posted on by

District Judge Mike Norman is in trouble with the ACLU for requiring ten years of church attendance as part of teenager Tyler Alred’s deferred sentence for DUI manslaughter. (See original posting on this story here.) The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma has filed a complaint with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints, accusing Norman of violating the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct by infringing on religious liberty. The executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, Ryan Kiesel, criticized Judge Norman on his actions.

“We believe in a strong and independent judiciary. For us to come to this conclusion really speaks to the level of disregard that Judge Norman has showed towards the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the state of Oklahoma,” Kiesel said.

Tyler Alred was allowed to decide between church and prison. Alred’s defense attorney Donn Baker said, “My client goes to church every Sunday. That isn’t going to be a problem for him. We certainly want the probation for him.”

In November, Norman admitted that his ruling may have been unconstitutional, but he was going to wait and see if he would get away with it. “I received a couple of bad calls – one from Oregon and one from Missouri – telling me it was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. They may well be right, but that’s what I did and we made a record,” Norman said. Then he added, “If someone wants to appeal my decision, they’re entitled to do that.”

On Tuesday, the ACLU took him up on his offer.

“Driving High” Marijuana DUI Law in Washington

Posted on by

Marijuana will be legal in the state of Washington starting on December 6, but drivers need to be aware that the ballot initiative that legalized it also included a new DUI Standard which may make driving riskier for regular users than the previous law did.

Under Washington law, adults (persons 21 years and old) may possess up to an ounce of processed marijuana, 16 ounces of marijuana-infused product (solid form), or 72 ounces of marijuana infused liquid product.

The DUI standard and physical control laws have set the THC level for intoxication at 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. This has been deemed the level at which motor skills are impaired to the point that it is too dangerous for a person to operate a motor vehicle, and is similar to the standard for alcohol which is 0.08.

A driver’s THC must be tested through a blood test. The law that allows for a blood draw on a driver has changed, they are referred to as Implied Consent laws, and now the law allows for blood tests if the driver is suspected of being under the influence of marijuana.

The DUI standard for persons under age 21 is zero tolerance. Any driver under the age of 21 who is suspected of being under the influence of marijuana, and who subsequently tests for any amount of marijuana in their system, will be charged with DUI.

Washington State Patrol Spokeman Bob Calkins said, “Regardless of whether this person has been a regular user of marijuana, may have a routine THC level in his blood of this point or that point, if he’s driving OK, he’s probably not going to come to our attention. And if he’s driving badly, he probably is going to come to our attention.”

Part V of the initiative, the section that establishes the per se DUI limit of THC at 5ng/mL, has raised concern amongst medical marijuana advocates who say the new DUI law will lead to convictions for those who use marijuana to treat their ailments. The metabolite 11-COOH-THC, which is the secondary metabolite in marijuana that forms after consumption of cannabis and is also known as the metabolite that can remain in a person’s system for days to weeks, is explicitly excluded for from consideration for a DUI charge.

11-OH-THC is the active metabolite of THC. If both 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC are present then motor impairment may still be present.

Will New Texas DWI Laws Pass to Allow for Sobriety Checkpoints?

Posted on by

The Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee met Monday in Austin to discuss creative ways to curb DWI in the state. San Antonio police Deputy Chief Anthony Trevino urged legislators to allow for permanent DWI checkpoints that would allow law enforcement to stop drivers and do routine sobriety tests near “drunk driving hot spots.” The deputy police chief’s idea was opposed by Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project who said that this would allow for police abuse of power.

Harrington said, “Once you start setting these roadblocks, you are basically saying the government has control over your movement.”

State Representative Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, the committee chairman, wanted “creative ways” to reduce the number of DWI’s in Texas, and said that the committee was looking for a change in DWI laws to “get on the front end of the problem.” In 2010, drunk drivers with a blood alcohol level higher than 0.08 killed 1,259 people on the Texas roadways. California, which has the second highest number of DWI deaths in the country, had 791 deaths in 2010 caused by drunk drivers.

Gallego said, “It’s always bothersome when California does something better than Texas. California – with more cars, more drivers and more people – still has less DWI-related deaths than Texas does.” This hearing was Pete Gallego’s last in the state Capitol, as he was elected on November 6th to represent U.S. House District 23.

Bexar County (San Antonio) District Attorney Susan Reed expanded “no refusal” weekends to every day of the year starting in April 2012. This means that anyone suspected of DWI in Bexar County will be required to have their blood tested if they refuse the breathalyzer. Reed said of their policy, “We are now the largest metro area in Texas to have an absolute no-refusal policy.”

Bill Lewis, MADD’s public policy liaison, asked legislators to support sobriety checkpoints by passing laws to allow police officers to conduct them. He said checkpoints could save 200 lives in Texas every year. Lewis said of lawmakers, “We have asked them to provide those guidelines for, what is it 18 years? They haven’t done it, so may it’s time to try something else.” He said he would be surprised if the checkpoints do get passed into law because he recognizes that some see checkpoints as government playing “big brother.”

Lewis did suggest to the Legislature that all first-time DWI offenders be required to use an ignition interlock device on their vehicle, which would prevent a car from starting if the driver has any detectable amount of alcohol in their system. Under Texas law, it is the discretion of the judges whether the ignition interlock device is used for DWI offenders.

Texas prohibits checkpoints based on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, however the Corpus Christi Police Department claims to have found a loophole. Public Information Officer for the Department, Julie Garcia, claims that the department does conduct what they call “driver’s license checkpoints” routinely. If during this driver’s license checkpoint a driver is suspected to be impaired, the officer can conduct field sobriety tests, which if failed, the driver “can and will be arrested.”

Driver’s license checkpoints are also used in Lubbock County, according to Assistant District Attorney Tom Brummett, who said that these checkpoints are an effective way to legally target DWI drivers. He said, “Even though we can’t use DWI or sobriety checkpoints, the law does allow us to use driver’s license checkpoints, vehicle safety checkpoints.”

$73k Anti-DUI Grant Just in Time for the Holidays

Posted on by

What better way to kick-off a safe start to the New Year than to receive a $73,000 grant to fund an anti-DUI program? The Palm Desert Police Department received the large grant from the state Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). According to the director, Christopher J. Murphy, the DUI checkpoints funded by such grants have been “an essential part of the phenomenal reduction in DUI deaths” from 2006 to 2010 in California. He added, “But since the tragedy of DUI accounts for nearly one third of traffic fatalities, Palm Desert needs the high visibility enforcement and public awareness that this grant will provide.”

The special grant is going to use the funds to target impaired drivers and also educate the public on the dangers of DUI by creating checkpoints. According to Palm Desert Police, the DUI checkpoints have been the most effective tool to any DUI enforcement strategy, and are said to save $6 for every $1 spent.

On November 19 of this year, the Palm Desert Police Department received a $100,072.00 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety to fund a year-long program aimed to prevent deaths on the roadways through special enforcement and raising public awareness. The grant was said to fund Specialized DUI training in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, and Drug Recognition Evaluation. The grant was also expected to fund DUI Saturation Patrols, compilation of DUI Hot Sheets, Court sting operations that would catch drivers using their vehicle after a court appearance after their license had been pulled for DUI, and stakeout operations to observe repeat DUI offender probationers with revoked or suspended licenses.

The grant comes at a time when DUI enforcement is at its highest. Programs like DUI checkpoints are used to reduce the number of deaths and injuries related to drunk driving, which is especially high during major holidays like Christmas and New Year’s.

Montana DUI Laws Allow for Lenient Sentence for Man’s 13th DUI

Posted on by

Judge Susan Watters was required by Montana’s DUI sentencing laws to give a seemingly lenient sentence to a man who has been arrested for drunk driving a dozen times. The case of William Dean Grussing brought light to what the prosecutor referred to as a “gaping hole” in a statute that is supposed to punish drunk drivers. According to the Montana DUI laws, a maximum sentence of 5 years can be imposed for a felony DUI conviction if the defendant previously attended a treatment program while in jail for a DUI offense. However, as in Grussing’s case, if a defendant did not participate in a treatment program they can only be sentenced to a standard term of 13 months followed by a maximum probation of 5 years.

Judge Susan Watters said, “It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone who completes treatment could get five years, but someone who doesn’t gets a more lenient sentence. That doesn’t make sense to me, and I would encourage the Legislature to take a look at that provision.”

Grussing was charged with his 12th DUI in June 2011. While that case was pending, Grussing was arrested for DUI again in June 2012 and was charged with his 13th DUI.

Grussing could have been required to pay a $5,000 fine for felony DUI, which is Montana’s maximum fine. Grussing was ordered to pay $3,000 in fines. Grussing spoke at his sentencing hearing, and said he had been sober for 9 1/2 years before last year’s arrest.

Montana has been getting tougher on DUI laws in other ways. House Bill 14, which changes the look-back period for DUI offenses from five-years to ten-years, was passed in 2011. This means that any DUI on a person’s record can be considered if they re-offend within a ten-year period. Previously, the courts could only consider drunk driving offenses that occurred within the last five years.

Not all lawmakers were fond of this new law, especially Republican Alan Hale, who gave a speech opposing HB14 and the toughening of all DUI laws. He said, “These DUI laws are not doing our small businesses in our state any good at all. They are destroying them. They are destroying a way of life that has been in Montana for years and years. These taverns and bars in these smaller communities connect people together. They are the center of the communities. I’ll guarantee you there’s only two ways to get there: either you hitchhike, or you drive, and I promise you they’re not going to hitchhike.”